Online gambling hearing pushed back indefinitely

[The Buzz]

A hearing on the enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was supposed to be held this Friday. To no surprise of Buzzy, who is quite used to reporting these sort of things, the hearing has been pushed back indefinitely.

From Poker News Daily:

A hearing in the House Financial Services Committee scheduled for Friday, April 16th has been postponed. No makeup date has been announced for the discussion, which was to center on two internet gambling bills proposed by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA).

The hearing was set to feature debate over “governmental perspectives” of HR 2266 (Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act) and HR 2267 (Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act). Frank introduced both measures last May. HR 2266 delays mandatory financial services industry compliance with the regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) by one year, while HR 2267 establishes a full framework for internet gambling outfits to solicit real money customers from the United States.

[Anthony]

I'm feel full enforcement of UIGEA will be in place before they reschedule this hearing. Which might not be such a bad thing. If the banks complain enough, congress will listen.

[Caruso]

I always thought that it would be ridiculously easy: just compile a list of the transaction codes, and circulate them them to the banks. The banks then block them. Any gambling codes that the admin hasn't listed and as such get through...well, that's not the banks' fault. Easy peasy for the banks then.

The UK government talks about "test deposits" in its latest proposals for online gambling legislation, so it's not even a new concept.

Of course, if the US admin can't be arsed and leaves it to the banks to work out for themselves, the banks will probably complain.

[GamTrak]

I'm feel full enforcement of UIGEA will be in place before they reschedule this hearing. Which might not be such a bad thing. If the banks complain enough, congress will listen.

Those are my thoughs as well Anthony!

Folks need to see the law in affect in order to get mad enough to 'do something' about it. Can't belive UIGEA is four years old already!

[Adamvv]

Congress and delays - two peas in a pod.

[Renee]

I will never forget the day it passed. I can't believe it's been almost 4 years either.

I remember coming into the office and it was such a nice day coming into summer... None of us could even believe that it went through because there were always little scares and everyone always said it will never pass..

I guess they proved us wrong.

But the show must go on!

I say screw the pollies... here's to (at least) another 10 years booming in our industry!

[Caruso]

I've been looking more closely at the Frank proposed bill.

I think there are probably many currently US-servicing casinos hoping legislation like that NEVER makes the books.

[CoopersPick]

do you think that there are live odds of this thing passing or not? I mean it has to be reverted eventually for tax raising purposes right?

[Caruso]

I've put together a slightly-less-user-unfriendly version of the Frank proposal, for anyone inclined to read it but put off by the sheer unnavigatable nature of governmental documents:

http://online_casino_news.hundredper...egulation.html

I've also made a few comments:

http://online_casino_news.hundredper...try-faces.html

The only thing that Frank doesn't specifically outline is the actual penalties, but in the case of the US the threat alone is probably enough to be going on with.

[rewardscasino]

I've put together a slightly-less-user-unfriendly version of the Frank proposal, for anyone inclined to read it but put off by the sheer unnavigatable nature of governmental documents:

http://online_casino_news.hundredper...egulation.html

I've also made a few comments:

http://online_casino_news.hundredper...try-faces.html

The only thing that Frank doesn't specifically outline is the actual penalties, but in the case of the US the threat alone is probably enough to be going on with.

Thanks for your point,

As I see it, this proposals seem to be made by protectionists. There will be probably a condition that operator has to be located in the US,if he wants to obtain a licence. "be located in USA" means that senior management and computer equipment has to be placed in USA. It results from the tax analysis made by Joint Committee on Taxation.

Next think which form my opinion is a special tax rate. Internet Gambling regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2010 imposes a special 50% tax of deposits of individuals "that deposit funds into accounts with unlicensed (off-shore) operators." "Individuals who place bets with licensed operators would not have to pay any new taxes"(source: safeandsecureig.org) 50%?

I dont think that US gambling market will be equally opened to US and foreign operators.

Second side of the coin is, how successful will the Bills be regarding enforcement and whether the Bills will get respect both by players and operators.

PS: Excuse my english, please